The Bank Desk and the Senior Citizen
Kabir is a relationship manager on a bank's wealth desk, holding NISM Series V-A (mutual fund distributor) certification. The branch is not registered as an investment adviser. Mr. Sinha, 72, walks in with Rs. 40 lakh maturing from a fixed deposit and asks for 'something safe'. Kabir is Rs. 8 lakh short of his monthly target. He hands Sinha a risk-profile form, fills it in himself marking 'high risk', and gets Sinha to sign a blank transaction form 'to save time, sir, I'll fill the scheme later'. He sells a close-ended equity fund with a three-year lock-in as a lump sum, saying: 'This fund has never given less than 15% a year in its five-year history - it is practically guaranteed.' When Sinha asks about exiting, Kabir says: 'No exit charge, so you can leave whenever you like.'
1. Which of Kabir's actions are permitted execution/distribution activities and which cross into advice that the branch is not authorised to give?
Read the worked answer
Distribution is allowed; personalised recommendation is not - and several acts here are not even legitimate distribution.
Within permitted non-core/execution activity: explaining what a product is on a menu basis; collecting KYC and forms with the client's own inputs; processing the transaction; giving the client account statements, scheme documents and NAV information; informing the client of load, lock-in and exit terms accurately.
Crosses into regulated advice (the branch is not registered): the whole transaction is a personalised recommendation - a specific fund, a specific lump-sum amount, for a specific individual's stated need ('something safe'), in return for commission. Advice for consideration, security-specific and tailored to the client, is investment advice. Either the activity is confined to execution-only (menu, no recommendation, client's own choice recorded), or the person giving that advice must be a registered adviser. Commission is consideration - it does not become 'free' because no fee is invoiced.
Straightforwardly prohibited regardless of registration:
- Recommending a 3-year lock-in equity fund for a 72-year-old asking for safety - a suitability failure of the most basic kind.
- Filling in the risk profile himself - the profile is the client's declaration; a seller-completed 'high risk' tick is fabricated evidence.
- A blank signed transaction form - the client has authorised nothing; this is the seed of unauthorised trading and is indefensible in any audit or dispute.
- 'Practically guaranteed' / past returns as a promise - an assurance of returns is barred; past performance is not indicative and cannot be presented as such.
- 'Leave whenever you like' - a false statement about liquidity; the lock-in is a material term.
2. Sinha later complains. Analyse the firm's exposure and what the branch's controls should have been.
Read the worked answer
Exposure is serious because most of the failures are documentary, not just verbal - they will be provable.
| Failure | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| Blank signed form | No valid client authorisation; potential unauthorised transaction; per se audit failure |
| Self-completed risk profile | Suitability cannot be evidenced; the profile is now a fabricated record |
| Senior citizen, safety objective, locked-in equity | Classic mis-selling; aggravated by age and stated need |
| Guarantee language | Breach of the conduct requirement not to assure returns |
| Misstated liquidity | Misrepresentation of a material product term |
| Target-driven sale | Inducement; the firm's incentive design is itself part of the cause |
Controls that should have existed:
- No blank or pre-signed forms, ever - transaction forms completed and verified in the client's presence, with a maker-checker at the branch.
- Client-driven risk profiling with client signature and a copy given to the client; a product-to-profile mapping gate that blocks a high-risk product for a low-risk/senior client without documented override.
- Script and disclosure discipline - standard wording on lock-in, exit load, riskometer, and an absolute bar on guarantee language; call recording at the desk.
- Senior-citizen safeguards - cooling-off/look-period confirmation call, larger-transaction review, plain-language term sheet.
- Clear role separation - a distributor desk does not present itself as an adviser; if advice is to be given, the bank registers the advisory arm and the personnel hold the required certification.
- Incentive review - targets and commissions structured so that a lock-in product is not the most rewarded sale.
- Redressal - Sinha must be told how to complain, the complaint must be logged, and the firm should assess unwinding or compensating where the sale breached suitability.
3. Kabir argues: 'He signed everything, and I only told him about a fund that exists - that is information, not advice.' How do you answer?
Read the worked answer
Consent does not cure defective process, and 'information' does not cover a recommendation.
- On 'he signed': a signature obtained on a blank form authorises nothing. The client signed a piece of paper, not a transaction. A signature on a document whose essential terms were filled in later, by the seller, is not informed consent. The risk profile is even worse: the client's own assessment must be the client's.
- On 'information vs advice': a neutral description would be: 'this is an equity fund, it carries market risk, it has a 3-year lock-in, here is the riskometer'. What Kabir said was: 'put your Rs. 40 lakh here, it has returned 15% every year, it is practically guaranteed'. That supplies a conclusion about what this client should do. Specific, personalised, and made in the course of a commission-earning business - that is advice.
- On 'the fund exists': existence is not suitability. The question is not whether the product is genuine but whether it fits a 72-year-old with a safety objective and no disclosed appetite for a locked-in equity bet.
- On good faith: Kabir's motive (short of target) is irrelevant to whether the conduct breached the rules, but it is highly relevant to the firm's supervisory failure - the incentive system produced exactly the behaviour it paid for.
The right answer to the client, if the sale is found to have breached suitability, is remediation - unwind where possible, compensate where not, log the complaint, and fix the process - not a defence built on a blank form.